DAFLER v. RAYMARK INDUSTRIES, INC, N.J., Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Attorney(S)

Jonathan W. Miller argued the cause for appellants ( Greitzer and Locks, attorneys; Mr. Miller, George C. Greatrex, Jr. and James J. Pettit, of counsel). Gita F. Rothschild argued the cause for respondent ( McCarter English, attorneys; Andrew T. Berry, of counsel; Mr. Berry and John C. Garde, on the brief).

Judges

PER CURIAM.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

FRANK DAFLER AND THERESA DAFLER, HIS WIFE, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. RAYMARKINDUSTRIES, INC.; GAF CORPORATION; CELOTEX CORPORATION; H.K. PORTER COMPANY;SOUTHERN TEXTILE CORPORATION; EAGLEPICHER INDUSTRIES, INC.; OWENS-ILLINOISGLASS COMPANY; GARLOCK, INC., NICOLET, INC., AND JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS ONETHROUGH TEN, DEFENDANTS, AND KEENE CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

PER CURIAM.

We granted certification, 130 N.J. 601, 617 A.2d 1223 (1992), to review so much of the judgment of the Appellate Division as determined that the trial record contained sufficient evidence to permit the jury to apportion damages between asbestos exposure and cigarette smoking. See Dafler v. Raymark Industries, Inc., 259 N.J. Super. 17 , 35-36, 611 A.2d 136 (1992).

We affirm the judgment on the foregoing issue, substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge King's opinion for the Appellate Division.

For affirmance — Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices CLIFFORD, HANDLER, POLLOCK, O'HERN, GARIBALDI and STEIN — 7.

DAFLER v. RAYMARK INDUSTRIES, INC

Comments